Star Distances

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:36:33 -0600, Art Deco Gave
us:

frootbat, meet Numby Genius.

Numby Genius, meet frootbat.


You're a ****ing retard, Fart Smello.

I was taking jabs at the Night Turd five years ago.

You are just as far behind as I always thought you were, if not
worse.

You'll likely never catch up.

Roy L. Fuchs wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:36:33 -0600, Art Deco Gave
us:

frootbat, meet Numby Genius.

Numby Genius, meet frootbat.


You're a ****ing retard, Fart Smello.

I was taking jabs at the Night Turd five years ago.

You are just as far behind as I always thought you were, if not
worse.

You'll likely never catch up.

Your l33t laming skillz, Numby? Hahahahahahahahahah

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development

It is not gelogically active.

Yes it is; internally if not tectonically.

http://mahi.ucsd.edu/rbulow/RESEARCH...2005_small.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978JGR....83.1245S

Lunar seismic activity detected by Apollo seismographs clearly shows a
monthly periodicity. Using 36 months of data, Lammlein et al. (1974)
found that the period is 27.2 days, the lunar nodical period. A search
for such periodicity in earthquakes, based on the 8 years covered in
the NOAA catalog, shows an analogous effect at half the lunar sidereal
period, 13.65 days. The probability that the effect occurs randomly is
assessed. The highest earthquake rate occurs at the two times each
month when the moon crosses declination zero. A model based upon
monthly changes in tidal forces explains the main patterns in both
earthquake and moonquake smaples by emphasizing directional
relationships rather than variation of earth-moon separation.




No, it causes precession, see below. It wouldn't
change the Earth's rotation.

Or lack thereof. By gyrate I mean precession, mostly, but...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-009

NASA scientists using data from the Indonesian earthquake calculated it
affected Earth's rotation, decreased the length of day, slightly
changed the planet's shape, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters.
The earthquake that created the huge tsunami also changed the Earth's
rotation.

http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/...matra.en.shtml




They call it a Solar SYSTEM for a reason.

Because it is gravitationally bound.

And because it's gravitationally bound it is inertially bound, the
solar system will try to conserve momentum.

http://www-math.mit.edu/18.034/notes/planet.pdf




Nonsense, we know the orbit of Juipter is unaffected.

Not orbit, "W-o-b-b-l-e".

http://www.seds.org/hst/96-32.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r..._jupiter.shtml
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html






Jupiter causes the sun to wobble to and fro at a maximum radial
velocity of 12.5 metres a second.

So what?

So don't you find that startling? That Jupiter has such a profound
affect on the Sun.



Right FAQ, wrong question:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/...ID=6&faqID=110

Thanks, I was looking for just such a page. Now if you follow this
link, and go down to the middle of the page, you'll find that the
number of earthquakes Worldwide do show an upward trend from 2000-2003.

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Total 22256 23534 27454 31419 31194 30459

Interestingly that also coincides with a solar max that peaked in July
of 2000.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010828-1.html

These are of interest too.
(Those are outrageous links!)

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif&cap =Changes%20in%20the%20Sun's%20output%20appear%20to %20be%20related%20to%20temperatures%20on%20Earth.

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/...ted %20States.

"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

It is not gelogically active.

Yes it is; internally if not tectonically.

http://mahi.ucsd.edu/rbulow/RESEARCH...2005_small.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978JGR....83.1245S

Yes, there is a low level but that is just from
solid tides.

No, it causes precession, see below. It wouldn't
change the Earth's rotation.

Or lack thereof.

You don't believe the Earth rotates?

By gyrate I mean precession, mostly,

If that's what you mean, please say so. It's
annoying having to guess.

but...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2005-009

NASA scientists using data from the Indonesian earthquake calculated it
affected Earth's rotation, decreased the length of day, slightly
changed the planet's shape, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters.
The earthquake that created the huge tsunami also changed the Earth's
rotation.

http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/...matra.en.shtml

That's just redistribution of mass within the
Earth and conservation of momentum.

They call it a Solar SYSTEM for a reason.

Because it is gravitationally bound.

And because it's gravitationally bound it is inertially bound,

What do you mean by that phrase?

the solar system will try to conserve momentum.

http://www-math.mit.edu/18.034/notes/planet.pdf

Obviously.

Nonsense, we know the orbit of Juipter is unaffected.

Not orbit, "W-o-b-b-l-e".

No, o-r-b-i-t. If the Pioneer anomaly was purely
gravitational as you suggest, it would show up in
the orbits but it doesn't. It would _also_ affect
precession but that is unmeasurable, it is the
effect on the orbit that provides the test.

http://www.seds.org/hst/96-32.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r..._jupiter.shtml
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

All atmospheric effects of no relevance to the
discussion.

Jupiter causes the sun to wobble to and fro at a maximum radial
velocity of 12.5 metres a second.

So what?

So don't you find that startling?

No. I'd find it startling if it was anything other
than that given the ratio of the masses and the
orbital speed of Jupiter.

That Jupiter has such a profound
affect on the Sun.

The effect is probably minimal, the gravity of
Jupiter affects all parts of the Sun so again
it is only the tidal component, i.e. the
difference of the gravitational pull on different
parts of the Sun, that matters.

Right FAQ, wrong question:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/...ID=6&faqID=110

Thanks, I was looking for just such a page. Now if you follow this
link, and go down to the middle of the page, you'll find that the
number of earthquakes Worldwide do show an upward trend from 2000-2003.

"Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes,
earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained
fairly constant throughout this century and, according to
our records, have actually seemed to decrease in recent
years."

The apparent increases are due to improved recording.

These are of interest too.
(Those are outrageous links!)

This can help:

http://tinyurl.com/

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif&cap =Changes%20in%20the%20Sun's%20output%20appear%20to %20be%20related%20to%20temperatures%20on%20Earth.

http://tinyurl.com/qoqdw

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/...ted %20States.

http://tinyurl.com/r6csg

All of which is interesting but of no relevance
at all to the subject. If you want a more
credible idea for the Pioneer anomaly, consider
this:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501626

Drag from dark matter. It is still unlikely but at
least it fits the Pioneer observations. The
problems lie in other areas.

If you want to continue discussing some 'dark star'
gravitational solution, go and work out where you
think it is in relation to the Sun, how far away
and what mass it must be to produce the observed
constant acceleration towards the Sun for _both_
craft before you reply. Remember the acceleration
is GM/r^2 and you should be able to work out the
consequences of trial locations with a pencil and
paper and basic calculator.

George

On Sat, 8 Jul 2006 09:17:04 +0100, "George Dishman"
Gave us:

They call it a Solar SYSTEM for a reason.

Because it is gravitationally bound.

To A STAR. Sol, to be precise.

On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:10:00 GMT, Roy L. Fuchs
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 19:36:33 -0600, Art Deco Gave
us:

frootbat, meet Numby Genius.

Numby Genius, meet frootbat.


You're a ****ing retard, Fart Smello.

I was taking jabs at the Night Turd five years ago.

You are just as far behind as I always thought you were, if not
worse.

You'll likely never catch up.

"****ing retard"

one ad hominem? only one? is it possible for someone like you to
grow more brain cells? wow.

--
Dave Hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"I can't find my puppy, can you help me find him? I think he went
into this cheap motel room."
-Dave Hillstrom

No, o-r-b-i-t. If the Pioneer anomaly was purely
gravitational as you suggest, it would show up in
the orbits but it doesn't. It would _also_ affect

A 10^-8 cm/s^2 is not going to show in the orbits. Because of their
angular momentum the planets will resist a linear change in motion like
a gyroscope. Wobble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope


precession but that is unmeasurable, it is the
effect on the orbit that provides the test.

See, I told you it would be difficult to measure; that's why we look
for proxies like atmospheric effects, earthquakes, and solar output.




http://www.seds.org/hst/96-32.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r..._jupiter.shtml
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

All atmospheric effects of no relevance to the
discussion.

"Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes,
earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained
fairly constant throughout this century and, according to

The number of earthquakes is more relevant than the magnitude.

"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

No, o-r-b-i-t. If the Pioneer anomaly was purely
gravitational as you suggest, it would show up in
the orbits but it doesn't. It would _also_ affect

A 10^-8 cm/s^2 is not going to show in the orbits.

Sorry, this has been checked and it would
show up, we can measure the planets extremely
accurately. A gravitational effect of that
level would show up and it doesn't, whatever
the anomaly it only affects much smaller
bodies.

I'm still waiting for you to explain where you
could place your hypothetical extra body to
produce the observed accelerations. Let me
give you a hint, it cannot be done.

Because of their
angular momentum the planets will resist a linear change in motion like
a gyroscope. Wobble.

So calculate how much the precession of the
equinoxes would be changed by an extra
acceleration of 10^-8 cm/s^2 towards the Sun.
The current rate is once per 25800 years IIRC,
how much would it change?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope

precession but that is unmeasurable, it is the
effect on the orbit that provides the test.

See, I told you it would be difficult to measure; that's why we look
for proxies like atmospheric effects, earthquakes, and solar output.

We cannot predict terrestrial weather with any
accuracy so it is even less feasible to see any
discrepancy in any of those. On the other hand
the orbital effect would be large enough to see.

http://www.seds.org/hst/96-32.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r..._jupiter.shtml
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

All atmospheric effects of no relevance to the
discussion.

"Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes,
earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained
fairly constant throughout this century and, according to

The number of earthquakes is more relevant than the magnitude.

Magnitude 7 and above are large enough to be
reported without sophisticated measuring gear
so it is valid to examine the number of them.
They have not increased.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence
for an increase in frequency at any level, the
page you cited is crank stuff.

George

Sorry, this has been checked and it would
show up, we can measure the planets extremely
accurately. A gravitational effect of that
level would show up and it doesn't, whatever

Show up for dinner?

Ok, I'll say it again, you cannot easily linearly accelerate a planet
due to its angular momentum. A gravitational force (effect) of that
level will not budge the orbit of a planet. It will however gyrate the
planet. Wobble. I like that word, it sounds silly. Wobble.


the anomaly it only affects much smaller
bodies.

It affects the Pioneer spacecrafts, more noticeably, because they don't
have the astronomically large angular momentums of a planet. Of course
even the Pioneers would tend to get gyrated (turned), just not nearly
as much. In fact they mentioned in the paper that acceleration
measurements of the crafts were precise because of their spins
stabilizing them. If they could also measure any turning tendency
perhaps they could get more insight as to what was causing the
acceleration.






So calculate how much the precession of the
equinoxes would be changed by an extra
acceleration of 10^-8 cm/s^2 towards the Sun.

Given all the variables and quantities involved, both large and small,
I'm not sure it can be done with any certainty. Yet.



The number of earthquakes is more relevant than the magnitude.

Magnitude 7 and above are large enough to be
reported without sophisticated measuring gear
so it is valid to examine the number of them.
They have not increased.

Sure it's valid to examine them. Why wouldn't it be? But that
doesn't negate the validity of my previous statement.



The bottom line is that there is no evidence
for an increase in frequency at any level,

Yes there is, right there in the "official" USGS government stats.

the page you cited is crank stuff.

You gave me the link to the page. I thanked you. Thanks again.

"Hurt" wrote in message
ups.com...

Sorry, this has been checked and it would
show up, we can measure the planets extremely
accurately. A gravitational effect of that
level would show up and it doesn't, whatever

Show up for dinner?

Your term. The previous line you snipped was:

A 10^-8 cm/s^2 is not going to show in the orbits.

It would.

Ok, I'll say it again, you cannot easily linearly accelerate a planet
due to its angular momentum.

And I will teach you some basic physics: f=ma
applies equally whether the object is rotating
or not. The centre of momentum (you might know
it as 'centre of gravity') is accelerated at
exactly the same rate regardless.

A gravitational force (effect) of that
level will not budge the orbit of a planet. It will however gyrate the
planet. Wobble. I like that word, it sounds silly. Wobble.

You are wrong, it will affect the orbital motion
of the planet and, depending on the orientation
and other factors, may also precess the spin axis.

the anomaly it only affects much smaller
bodies.

It affects the Pioneer spacecrafts, more noticeably, because they don't
have the astronomically large angular momentums of a planet.

f = ma

If the force produced is gravitational:

f = GMm/r^2
a = GM/r^2

Of course these are Newtonian approximations but
adequate for this conversation. The point is that
angular momentum is not a factor.

Of course
even the Pioneers would tend to get gyrated (turned), just not nearly
as much. In fact they mentioned in the paper that acceleration
measurements of the crafts were precise because of their spins
stabilizing them. If they could also measure any turning tendency
perhaps they could get more insight as to what was causing the
acceleration.

They can, and much of the paper is devoted to this.

So calculate how much the precession of the
equinoxes would be changed by an extra
acceleration of 10^-8 cm/s^2 towards the Sun.

Given all the variables and quantities involved, both large and small,
I'm not sure it can be done with any certainty. Yet.

That's your problem.

The number of earthquakes is more relevant than the magnitude.

Magnitude 7 and above are large enough to be
reported without sophisticated measuring gear
so it is valid to examine the number of them.
They have not increased.

Sure it's valid to examine them. Why wouldn't it be? But that
doesn't negate the validity of my previous statement.

The number is reducing. It invalidates the claim
on the web page you mentioned (cited below) that
they are increasing.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence
for an increase in frequency at any level,

Yes there is, right there in the "official" USGS government stats.

the page you cited is crank stuff.

You gave me the link to the page. I thanked you. Thanks again.

Your memory fails you, the page you cited was this:

"Hurt" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip
... Check out this web site (MUST READ):

http://www.michaelmandeville.com/pol...relations2.htm

The message ID is included so you can check for
yourself.

What I gave you was the hint to look at the USGS
site which gives the lie to the above crank stuff:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

... Details
are on the US survey site somewhere but this is a well-known
'urban legend'.

I'm not so sure of that. The stats are out there for people to check.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/...ID=11&faqID=69

Right FAQ, wrong question:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learning/...ID=6&faqID=110

George